Russia warns of 'most serious consequences' if US strikes Syria

I think it's possible that Assad did not do it; he and Putin are protesting innocence; but since neither has any credibility we might disbelieve them even if they're telling the truth.

trying to figure who benefits from U.S. going in. the rebels?

wish the UN would step in. isn't that what they're about?

Yes, trust Bolton, that paragon of peace and diplomacy..
a reply to: olaru12

originally posted by: ElGoobero
I think it's possible that Assad did not do it; he and Putin are protesting innocence; but since neither has any credibility we might disbelieve them even if they're telling the truth.

trying to figure who benefits from U.S. going in. the rebels?

wish the UN would step in. isn't that what they're about?

The west has no credibility here either.

The west wants to knock out Assad as a proxy of Iran and Russia. Syria has Russia's only naval base outside of former USSR satellites.. There are also arguments regarding pipelines.

If there is evidence linking Syria to this attack (actual evidence, not conjecture) then we should call Russia's bluff and level every government installation in the country.

Assad was given a chance, US troops were planning to withdraw. That alone makes this "attack" suspicious to me, but again I'm keeping an open mind. So yet again, if true, time for action and if Russia dares step in then they should prepare to be our targets as well.

When will other countries/blocs learn that opposing US is always a losing proposition?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Peace and diplomacy are only part of the equation, step 1 if you will. We have diplomats, ambassadors and a State Dept. for that kind of stuff.

Extreme and decisive military force is the other option. In our case (the US military), it is a sure "win" AKA ace in the hole. The other nations will learn this eventually, that there is only one option in global affairs: doing what we tell them to do.

For instance, we can leverage our "peace and diplomacy" to tell Assad he has 8 hours to disarm his military forces, resign, leave the country and turn himself over to US authorities. If he refuses, we do it for him. See? That's diplomacy. Giving someone a chance to do something before they force our nation's armed forces to start twisting arms.

And unlike that ineffective hippie Obama, POTUS Trump won't talk about "red lines" or other posturing bluster. He'll start launching missiles, like he's already done against Syrian Gov.

No, even if there is evidence it HAS to be a UN resolution to take action. Otherwise it's a violation of international law and an act of unilateral war. At that point Russia and Syrua have the right legally to target the US.
a reply to: JBurns

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Who cares about UN and "legal." We're a SOVEREIGN nation, and don't need anyone's permission to take action. POTUS is Commander of our armed forces, not congress and not the UN. POTUS merely has to NOTIFY congress of his action within a certain period of time (I believe months). Frankly, what is anyone else going to do about it? Not a thing, that's what. They don't have the power to inflict their will upon us. No country does, short of total and global nuclear annihilation. Which isn't going to happen, provided Russia is a rational actor (they are)

Fact is, doing so would result in total and absolute destruction. Hence why we can't strike Russia directly. But Russia isn't going to end the world/their own country over Syria - it simply isn't important enough to warrant that degree of risk.

We can strike Syria with impunity - as we already have in the past (remember Trump lobbing 60+ tomahawks?). And I have to point out that Syria doesn't have the military assets to project force in CONUS. Nor would it survive long enough to cause any actual damage.

You do realize that a single Ohio class boomer boat could flatten their entire country, if it actually came to that? Also, the SSGN boats lurking off their shores could casually deliver heavy conventional payloads within minutes, totally undetectable by Syrian Gov.

We either need to decisively end this threat, or pull out of Syria entirely and ignore the entire country. Half measures are never effective, as we learned throughout Obama's entire """Presidency""" (worst vote I ever cast!)

originally posted by: notsure1
But i thought Trump and Putin were buddies who colluded to get Trump elected?

Now I can see why you have the profile picture that you do

Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Peace and diplomacy are only part of the equation, step 1 if you will. We have diplomats, ambassadors and a State Dept. for that kind of stuff.

Extreme and decisive military force is the other option. In our case (the US military), it is a sure "win" AKA ace in the hole. The other nations will learn this eventually, that there is only one option in global affairs: doing what we tell them to do.

For instance, we can leverage our "peace and diplomacy" to tell Assad he has 8 hours to disarm his military forces, resign, leave the country and turn himself over to US authorities. If he refuses, we do it for him. See? That's diplomacy. Giving someone a chance to do something before they force our nation's armed forces to start twisting arms.

And unlike that ineffective hippie Obama, POTUS Trump won't talk about "red lines" or other posturing bluster. He'll start launching missiles, like he's already done against Syrian Gov.

Rome once did what it wanted to to other people. War. Murder. Slaughter. Every empire who loves to bully other eventually met its fate.

a reply to: CMusi

And no one is suggesting we do.

But if Assad is truly murdering Syrian citizens, we should either 1) decisively eject his regime and hang him or 2) pull out entirely and leave it to someone else.

I personally vote for option #2. BUT, if we must act then we should do so with our signature "Shock and awe" and end this before it turns into yet another Afgan/Iraq ""WMD"" fiasco. (which Chem weps are)

BUT I do agree that Syria using chem weapons makes ZERO sense when we're about to pull out... Could easily have been a false flag, or an attack by US supported rebels to prevent our pull out. EASILY

Just like it makes ZERO sense for Russia to use a "scary Russian sounding nerve agent" (quote unquote) against a UK spy. Especially since they use radioactive elements, not Russia specific nerve agents. Even if they did choose a nerve agent, it'd have been something common like VX, GB etc (that every terrorist/third world dictator has)

So, could this be yet another false flag? Sure. Of course. All I'm saying is that we need to s##t or get off the pot. No Obama-esque bluster or empty threats. Either pull out (and say so) or end Assad.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: CMusi

And no one is suggesting we do.

But if Assad is truly murdering Syrian citizens, we should either 1) decisively eject his regime and hang him or 2) pull out entirely and leave it to someone else.

I personally vote for option #2. BUT, if we must act then we should do so with our signature "Shock and awe" and end this before it turns into yet another Afgan/Iraq ""WMD"" fiasco. (which Chem weps are)

This is war. People die. 600,000 Americans died in the American civil war. Assad never kills a single person who is not his enemy. The entire East Ghouta was captured from anti Assad army. From now on, not a single person will be killed there.

originally posted by: JBurns
BUT I do agree that Syria using chem weapons makes ZERO sense when we're about to pull out... Could easily have been a false flag, or an attack by US supported rebels to prevent our pull out. EASILY

Just like it makes ZERO sense for Russia to use a "scary Russian sounding nerve agent" (quote unquote) against a UK spy. Especially since they use radioactive elements, not Russia specific nerve agents. Even if they did choose a nerve agent, it'd have been something common like VX, GB etc (that every terrorist/third world dictator has)

So, could this be yet another false flag? Sure. Of course. All I'm saying is that we need to s##t or get off the pot. No Obama-esque bluster or empty threats. Either pull out (and say so) or end Assad.

Agree. Who uses chlorine these days? It's not effective and has never been used since the early days of WW1. These days they mostly use thermobarics which are far deadlier than chlorine.

BTW, tens of thousands of people from East Ghouta were transported by bus to anti Assad places. Assad does not kill anyone he does not have to kill. Compared to the American civil war, the Syrian civil war has been far milder with far less casualties.

Trump has given 48 hours notice to the Russians that he may take action, even if the white helmets did the dastterly chemical deed, he is left with no choice other than to save the Wests face so as we dont look as if we are doing nothing by chucking a few missiles at a military site , now hes given the Russians 48 hours notice so they can move their good gear to some other site and put some old clapped out planes in their place.
The game is set.as for serious consequences , well now they have said it then it could be a further Ukraine push.

originally posted by: 2hooitconcerns
Trump has given 48 hours notice to the Russians that he may take action, even if the white helmets did the dastterly chemical deed, he is left with no choice other than to save the Wests face so as we dont look as if we are doing nothing by chucking a few missiles at a military site , now hes given the Russians 48 hours notice so they can move their good gear to some other site and put some old clapped out planes in their place.
The game is set.as for serious consequences , well now they have said it then it could be a further Ukraine push.

Then he can kiss his second term goodbye. And not only that, GOP will be wiped out in the midterm.

BTW, Russians ain't going to move, so if he shoots Russians war is on. Let's go Trump. Don't even dare fight NK he fights Russia.

What about Syria's sovereignty? Seems a bit hypocritical there, considering we've been violating theirs since 2013 or so...
a reply to: JBurns

originally posted by: 2hooitconcerns
Trump has given 48 hours notice to the Russians that he may take action, even if the white helmets did the dastterly chemical deed, he is left with no choice other than to save the Wests face so as we dont look as if we are doing nothing by chucking a few missiles at a military site , now hes given the Russians 48 hours notice so they can move their good gear to some other site and put some old clapped out planes in their place.
The game is set.as for serious consequences , well now they have said it then it could be a further Ukraine push.

Ukrainians aren't Syrians. They don't fight Russians because they don't like dying for nothing. Plus, Poroshenko would lose election if Ukraine has a war with Russia.

a reply to: CMusi

I actually agree with you CM, my posts generally illustrate "do something or don't"

For the most part, Assad has done a great job suppressing radical extremism and terrorism so he does serve a good purpose. For Russia, he's also kept NATO off their doorstop despite agreements made with the US not to encroach on their sovereign borders

I would like to point out that I'm not advocating for military action, only saying that posturing/threats/bluster do no good for anybody.

In my opinion, we should pull out of Syria (where we have no business being). Syria's government didn't invite us, and we have no right to be there. The radical Islamists we support should be cut off, and we should betray their identities to Assad.

The fact the US government finances terrorists (for any reason) is an egregious offense that destroys the entire false 9/11 narrative.

Assad isn't perfect, but there are a whole hell of a lot bigger fish to fry. Only problem is, it isn't our cook out. We have no business interfering in Syria's internal affairs. Isn't this what some Americans are currently having a conniption fit over?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: CMusi

I actually agree with you CM, my posts generally illustrate "do something or don't"

For the most part, Assad has done a great job suppressing radical extremism and terrorism so he does serve a good purpose. For Russia, he's also kept NATO off their doorstop despite agreements made with the US not to encroach on their sovereign borders

I would like to point out that I'm not advocating for military action, only saying that posturing/threats/bluster do no good for anybody.

In my opinion, we should pull out of Syria (where we have no business being). Syria's government didn't invite us, and we have no right to be there. The radical Islamists we support should be cut off, and we should betray their identities to Assad.

The fact the US government finances terrorists (for any reason) is an egregious offense that destroys the entire false 9/11 narrative.

Assad isn't perfect, but there are a whole hell of a lot bigger fish to fry. Only problem is, it isn't our cook out. We have no business interfering in Syria's internal affairs. Isn't this what some Americans are currently having a conniption fit over?

Nah. They just want to nuke Damascus a city of 2 million people just so they can fulfill their stupid biblical prophecy that one day Damascus becomes a heap of rubble.